2013 Mac Pro Price (Range?)

[deconstruct60]

shipping alone on the smaller mac is going equate to cheaper prices on the user..

That isn't a BOM price component.

i dont know how many times a mac pro is shipped before reaching the end buyer but i'd guess at least three times..

3 * $50 = $150... still underwater on CPU increase. I never said there were not some subsystem cost reductions. But Apple added about as much as substracted with this new Mac Pro.

std 3.5" HDD --> custom PCI-e (bleeding edge SATA Express?) based SSD (probably an increase)
3 1GB DIMMs ---> likely at least 4 2GB DIMMs (probably an increase 4 x 4GB would be even more so )
1 FW controller ---> 3 TB controllers ( an increase)
0 discrete USB controller ---> 1 Discrete USB 3.0 controller ( an increase )
1 mainstream std format GPU card --> 2 FirePro configuration customer format GPUs card ( an increase )

Those definitely do have cost saving offsets to help balance them off. However, throwing a CPU increase on top of that makes it 6 items need to trade costs with. None cost in those decreases are in the GPU sized priced range.

and you're looking at maybe 40 old mac pros per palette vs. 250 new ones..

 

[flat five]

That isn't a BOM price component.

why does everybody here assume everyone else is an idiot? i was just pointing out a cost saving example from having a smaller size..

re: materials.. the new mac enclosure can be made out of the current side panel alone. i don't know how thin the new enclosure is but you might be able to get 2 out of the old side panel.

regardless, there are definitely savings coming from the smaller size which is going to translate into more computing power per $

 

[tuxon86]

dunno. if I go to ship something 10x20x20 vs 7x7x10, the first one is going to be a lot more expensive to send.

why is it so stupid to think the new mac will have cheaper shipping costs than the old one? and that the shipping costs multiply because it ships a few times during manufacturing ?

What is stupid is thinking that apple will pass the saving down to us... Never happens.

 

[deconstruct60]

The question is will they do that, or will they instead choose to launch a better equipped entry level Mac Pro at a higher price point. I'm speculating that they will opt for the latter for two reasons... (1) as I stated above, it will put some distance between the iMac and the Mac Pro and (2) to maximize margins from early adopters...

But.

(1) there is already distance between the current $2,500 price and the iMac.

a. top standard edition iMac $1,999. That is a $500 difference. ( a 25% increase from that position).

b. top iMac with BTO CPU $2,199 . $300 difference ( a 14% from that point. )

c. not sure really want to get into a match where two GPUs of Mac Pro go up against iMacs max GPU.

When it gets into the zone that the Mac Pro has to clear out to uncover every iMac BTO price point also .... that's a little loopy. It is unlikely that is doing something positive for the Mac Pro. The iMac perhaps, but not the Mac Pro.


(2) Apple doesn't generally change system pricing. If have a price that is optimized to soak the most out of users over the first 2 months what about the next 10 months? It would be one thing if Apple shifted prices every 3 months. They don't unless there is a major goof.

Long term optimization that again extremely unlikely not.

a. if you look at Intel iteration cycles on Xeon E5 class it is more than a year. Likewise the "pro" GPUs are updating at close to 1.5-2 year rates.
A 2nd generation Mac Pro might be longer than 12 months.

Apple seems to have adopted a pattern of launching a new Mac products like the MacBook Air or the Retina MacBook Pro at a premium price point to capitalize on must-have early adopters, only to lower the price a generation or two later.

Problem is that the MBA 13" did not displace any MacBook model. In fact, questionable whether or not it gets terminated by the rMBP 13" if the classic MBP 13" still stays market leader on this iteration (Presuming Apple doesn't kneecap it on purpose) and there is a reduction in rMBP 13" pricing.
If they kneecap the MBP 13" then the rMBP 13" will kill and assume the price point.

The MBA 11" replaced the MacBook (at the same price point ) but anyone who doesn't like the MBA 13" more can buy an 13" Mac alternative. In fact, most do. Back when the MBA 13" was by its lonesome it was the worse selling Mac product on the Apple store top ten list ( even lower than the Mac Pro). Up until recently, the 13" models has been a high growth state which has offset the log jam of overlapping products with overlapping products.

Mostly the same with the rMBP. The rMBP 15" terminated the 17" but not the 15" model. It also took over the price points of the 17". It didn't jump up over those price points and leave a larger gap between it and the classic 15". A huge gap just leaves holes in the line up where competing products can operate without competition. If Apple terminates the classic MBP 15" with an integrated graphics only rMBP 15" it will most likely slide right into the one 15" price point.

Apple knows their prices are way different from average industry selling prices. At the highest and lowest price points it has been a 'replace' rather than incrementally move down strategy. Going to high (and having value proposition justification problems) to even higher (just increasing the value prop problems. ) doesn't really help.

At any rate, I'll be pleasantly surprised if there's a solid offering at $2500 but I'm bracing for worse.

Nuking the old Mac Pro means they are opening up the current pricing zone for something. If it isn't this new Mac Pro 2013, not sure that is good long term for this new variant.

 

[flat five]

What is stupid is thinking that apple will pass the saving down to us... Never happens.

well, yes and no.. i mean, they're not going to simply lower prices for the sake of being 'good' or whatever.. it's just that they'll get their same profits from other areas.. instead of them profiting $25 per ship, they'll now be able to profit $5 per ship and $50 off a pricier cpu..

(yes, i made up those numbers.. but i do really believe they are trying to give the buyer more overall computing power for similar costs as the old model.. or, to say it another way-- if they kept the current design/form factor and added all the hardware improvements we're seeing in the new mac, the pricing would potentially of started around the 3500 mark.. (again- guessing.. but something along those lines))

 

[tuxon86]

well, yes and no.. i mean, they're not going to simply lower prices for the sake of being 'good' or whatever.. it's just that they'll get their same profits from other areas.. instead of them profiting $25 per ship, they'll now be able to profit $5 per ship and $50 off a pricier cpu..

(yes, i made up those numbers.. but i do really believe they are trying to give the buyer more overall computing power for similar costs as the old model.. or, to say it another way-- if they kept the current design/form factor and added all the hardware improvements we're seeing in the new mac, the pricing would potentially of started around the 3500 mark.. (again- guessing.. but something along those lines))

Not going to happens... They'll give us what is the most profitable for them while trying to be competitive in the market.

 

[flat five]

Not going to happens... They'll give us what is the most profitable for them while trying to be competitive in the market.

yeah, i guess this starts going out of the realm of what even makes sense to discuss at this point.. we don't know the prices yet.. i'll re-pickup this conversation in a few months

 

[martinX]

Good: A$4995, 16 GB RAM
Better: A$5995, 32 GB RAM
Best: A$6995, 32 GB RAM

I have sources.

At barbecues, I have sauces.

 

[omnious]

Not going to happens... They'll give us what is the most profitable for them while trying to be competitive in the market.

Thank you, finally someone with common sense.

Apple is not in the business of pleasing any specific industry members (audio, video, graphics, etc), only pleasing Apple shareholders.

Also, they are not going to build anything that gives *us* any value (in the long run) because then we wouldn't need to buy any more of their products, would be? That's not consumerism and not good for business at all.

And since we all know Apple's past history (it's a matter of public record) this time will not be any different than any other time. Actually, each time they are diametrically opposite of what everyone expects to happen.

The more people ask for expandability, less is given by Apple. Even worse, these same people then defend Apple for doing it by coming up with all kinds of excuses to justify to themselves another pointless purchase.

I can only wish people boycott a next gen. of Apple products to send a clear message that we are the ones holding the cash and buying power. Alas, not gonna happen, lull continues on...

 

[flat five]

Thank you, finally someone with common sense.

Apple is not in the business of pleasing any specific industry members (audio, video, graphics, etc), only pleasing Apple shareholders.

Also, they are not going to build anything that gives *us* any value (in the long run) because then we wouldn't need to buy any more of their products, would be? That's not consumerism and not good for business at all.

i think you may be missing what i was saying up there when i said we'll be getting more computer power for the same price..

apple will happily sell us shipping (i.e.- they profit off of shipping.. it's not money out of their pocket.. it's money in their pocket via our.. if apple pays 100 for shipping something, the buyer gives them 125.. if they pay 100 for aluminum, the buyer gives more.. etc)
what i'm getting at is that the shareholder really don't give a crap if they're making X amt of dollars off of shipping or bolts or wires or whatever.. they're only concerned with making X dollars

in order to make more X dollars, they need to sell a more attractive product.. dual gpu is generally more attractive to a potential buyer than a volume of air.. apple doesn't care if their money is coming from gpu or air but they're smart enough to realize more people will buy a second gpu over a big block of aluminum..

if you could sell 10 units of air for $1000 or 15 gpus for 1500.. what would you choose to do?

The more people ask for expandability, less is given by Apple. Even worse, these same people then defend Apple for doing it by coming up with all kinds of excuses to justify to themselves another pointless purchase.

I can only wish people boycott a next gen. of Apple products to send a clear message that we are the ones holding the cash and buying power. Alas, not gonna happen, lull continues on...

i'm sure you could rustle up 50 or so protestors around here but try not to be to discouraged when you go out in the real world and find that most people actual like the new computer.

(well, there are probably another 500million people that would like to join your protest except that they're already protesting.. why not just join them instead of starting a new protest?)

 

[VirtualRain]

But.

(1) there is already distance between the current $2,500 price and the iMac.

a. top standard edition iMac $1,999. That is a $500 difference. ( a 25% increase from that position).

b. top iMac with BTO CPU $2,199 . $300 difference ( a 14% from that point. )

c. not sure really want to get into a match where two GPUs of Mac Pro go up against iMacs max GPU.

When it gets into the zone that the Mac Pro has to clear out to uncover every iMac BTO price point also .... that's a little loopy. It is unlikely that is doing something positive for the Mac Pro. The iMac perhaps, but not the Mac Pro.


(2) Apple doesn't generally change system pricing. If have a price that is optimized to soak the most out of users over the first 2 months what about the next 10 months? It would be one thing if Apple shifted prices every 3 months. They don't unless there is a major goof.

Long term optimization that again extremely unlikely not.

a. if you look at Intel iteration cycles on Xeon E5 class it is more than a year. Likewise the "pro" GPUs are updating at close to 1.5-2 year rates.
A 2nd generation Mac Pro might be longer than 12 months.

When I talk about "distance" between the Mac Pro and iMac, I'm not talking price, I'm talking simple marketing... I'm looking at the product page for the iMac and see this feature heading...

"Powerful Intel Quad Core Processors. Fast comes standard"

So from a simple marketing perspective, a new Mac Pro with a Quad Core CPU will not be sufficiently differentiated from an iMac (or even a Mac Mini). I believe their only option to give the Mac Pro exclusivity, and a perception of a powerhouse that outperforms all other Macs, is that it must come standard with a Hex Core (or better). Having the same core count as a Mac Mini and iMac will be a marketing fail in Phil Schiller's eyes, regardless of all the other architectural differences.

Problem is that the MBA 13" did not displace any MacBook model. In fact, questionable whether or not it gets terminated by the rMBP 13" if the classic MBP 13" still stays market leader on this iteration (Presuming Apple doesn't kneecap it on purpose) and there is a reduction in rMBP 13" pricing.
If they kneecap the MBP 13" then the rMBP 13" will kill and assume the price point.

The MBA 11" replaced the MacBook (at the same price point ) but anyone who doesn't like the MBA 13" more can buy an 13" Mac alternative. In fact, most do. Back when the MBA 13" was by its lonesome it was the worse selling Mac product on the Apple store top ten list ( even lower than the Mac Pro). Up until recently, the 13" models has been a high growth state which has offset the log jam of overlapping products with overlapping products.

Mostly the same with the rMBP. The rMBP 15" terminated the 17" but not the 15" model. It also took over the price points of the 17". It didn't jump up over those price points and leave a larger gap between it and the classic 15". A huge gap just leaves holes in the line up where competing products can operate without competition. If Apple terminates the classic MBP 15" with an integrated graphics only rMBP 15" it will most likely slide right into the one 15" price point.

Apple knows their prices are way different from average industry selling prices. At the highest and lowest price points it has been a 'replace' rather than incrementally move down strategy. Going to high (and having value proposition justification problems) to even higher (just increasing the value prop problems. ) doesn't really help.

Nuking the old Mac Pro means they are opening up the current pricing zone for something. If it isn't this new Mac Pro 2013, not sure that is good long term for this new variant.

I'm really not sure what you're point is... is it that Apple has never charged a premium on a new Mac in order to maximize margin from early adopters? If so, I'm afraid I can't agree. The first gen MacBook Air I purchased back in 2008 cost me $2K. That's double the price of the current product.

There's nothing saying that Apple won't do something similar with this radical redesign of the Mac Pro and come out of the gate with an entry level price that will shock most people here. The sad truth is that my guess of a $3K entry price point could be low by a couple grand. Even at a $5K entry point there's probably enough demand from deep-pocket production houses that could consume all of Apple's production capacity for the first year.

So, I hope for an entry level price point of $2500, but am expecting much higher. And I believe anyone expecting a lower entry level price is on crack. This is not an iDevice where Apple is gunning for market share domination.

 

[flat five]

the sad truth is that my guess of a $3k entry price point could be low by a couple grand. Even at a $5k entry point there's probably enough demand from deep-pocket production houses that could consume all of apple's production capacity for the first year.

$500
$600
$700
$900
$1100
$1400
$1700
$2000
$2200
$5000
$6500
$8000

?

 

[VirtualRain]

$500
$600
$700
$900
$1100
$1400
$1700
$2000
$2200
$5000
$6500
$8000

?

Like I said, I hope not. It really depends on Apples positioning and pricing strategy, target market, and desired margin. I just think that to assume this new Mac Pro will be priced exactly like the outgoing model is unwise. Anyone who's been around here long enough will recall that the last time the Mac Pro architecture changed significantly back in 2009, the pricing was very different causing a lot of bitterness around here. I'm suggesting folks get ready for a possible repeat.

 

[flat five]

Like I said, I hope not.

i'm not saying you're wrong or anything like that.. basically just presenting what you said in a different way.

i could probably be considered an average mac pro user and spender.. some people are willing to spend more.. some truly overspent on the entry model.. and i'd say i'm in the middle of that spectrum-- just like most of you all.

and i'm saying, there's no way i will drop 5g on the low config of this computer.. i'm in the spending group of 3-4000 ..it's a decent size group.. and a group that goes entirely unrepresented in that list i made.
apple know this.

 

[deconstruct60]

When I talk about "distance" between the Mac Pro and iMac, I'm not talking price,

If not talking about price why trying to drive the price up with more expensive components?

I'm talking simple marketing... I'm looking at the product page for the iMac and see this feature heading...

"Powerful Intel Quad Core Processors. Fast comes standard"

And exactly what is wrong with 4 cores for the Mac Pro. This means Mac Pro's starting with 4 and going up is just as Fast standard and even Faster. Those who want the "way Faster" can buy the middle and up Mac Pro. There is absolutely zero conflict here at all. As I said you keep conflating the entry Mac Pro marketing issues with the whole Mac Pro issues they are quite separate.

The 4 core being "Fast" and the iMacs being "Fast" doesn't mean they won't be hugely separated on Apple's hyperbole marketing pages. The entry 4 core model would have 6 TB ports the iMac only two. How much want to beat that the Mac Pro's hyperbole marketing pages aren't going to make a big deal about the highly unusual number of TB ports present? Or the two "pro" GPUs as opposed to the one "mobile, maybe entry desktop class" one stuck with in the iMac.

Apple's hyperbole marketing page is going to pitch the whole Mac Pro line up. It isn't going to be limited to just 4 x86 cores.

So from a simple marketing perspective, a new Mac Pro with a Quad Core CPU will not be sufficiently differentiated from an iMac (or even a Mac Mini).

Only on the myopic CPU dimension. RAM? more. TB ports and I/O bandwidth? More. Monitor choices? hugely more. If those aspects mean zero why buying a Mac Pro in the first place. The buyers have to be different for the differentiation to have any impact. You seem to be trying to pitch the 4 core model has to 'take away' some hard core iMac targeted folks, so just "run away" by putting a $1000 gap between.

It is far more effective to just highlight the differences that are present more effectively than to artificially inflate the product's price.

I believe their only option to give the Mac Pro exclusivity,

The > $2K computer market is already exclusive. The average selling price of a desktop box is sub $1K.

A $1,000 more just to go to 2 more cores ..... Even Intel spinning that kind of story. Never mind there are going to be gobs of decent $1,500 6 core boxes out on the market. That is selling kool-aid not exclusivity.

and a perception of a powerhouse that outperforms all other Macs,

No Mac outperforms all other Macs on all aspects. If mobility is a factor then the MBP out performs the Mac Pro.

The entry Mac Pro is right next to the top end BTO iMac. They are going to be similar because they are close, but neither one is the whole product.

Anyone who needs balanced, sustained high end computation the Mac Pro is different from the iMac.

is that it must come standard with a Hex Core (or better).

No. It just needs to be different; which it is.

Having the same core count as a Mac Mini and iMac will be a marketing fail in Phil Schiller's eyes, regardless of all the other architectural differences.

So the Mac Pro has several other differences but if don't mark this one singular difference ( which it actually has anyway without destroying the entry level Mac Pro's pricing ) then it is a fail.

It is a marketing failure if don't highlight the differences the product actually has. Injecting artificial ones is adding gimmicks, not better marketing.

I'm really not sure what you're point is... is it that Apple has never charged a premium on a new Mac in order to maximize margin from early adopters? If so, I'm afraid I can't agree.

You don't have to agree to what actually happened. MBA 11" wiped out MacBook at the same price point. rMBP 15" wiped out MBP 17" at about the same price points.

Trying to extrpoloate the MBA 13" to Apple's standard practice is fundamentally flawed. There are two examples above and only one of yours. Which one is more likely Apple's general approach? Which one more closely matches the current situation ( killed off form factor.)?

Even at a $5K entry point there's probably enough demand from deep-pocket production houses that could consume all of Apple's production capacity for the first year.

You must drink a gallon of Cupertino Kool-aid every day. First, those " flush with so much money don't really care" folks aren't the bulk of the Mac Pro market (either now or the new subset the Mac Pro 2013 is targeting). Second, if Apple was primarily interested in keeping the > $4.5K market they would have kept the dual CPU infrastructure foundation and dumped the single CPU option. They did exactly the opposite. So I don't think even they are drinking the kool-aid you are.

Apple is not immune from the general forces pushing computer prices lower. It is a juggling act to insert more value to keep the prices steady but arbitrarily doubling the prices... that is walking on water that even Apple isn't going to do.

Is Apple going hit $2,499 exactly? Maybe not. (hinges on their FirePro licensing and part sourcing deal ). $2,599 could be the number. But purposely pushing away from the price point when the parts don't demand it, that's loopy. Product prices are very significant.

So, I hope for an entry level price point of $2500, but am expecting much higher.

I don't because there is a mix of component price reductions and increases. There may be a marginal net increase, but a large jump isn't really justified in the context of those reductions. For a fair number of users there is going to be some cost shifting from Mac Pro to another component to complete the deployed system.

For example, if buy into the "tail wags dog" folks, a higher Mac Pro price will only decrease Thunderbolt Display sales. Higher core system price is going to force a reductions elsewhere for those on a budget.

And I believe anyone expecting a lower entry level price is on crack. This is not an iDevice where Apple is gunning for market share domination.

Domination isn't the issue. It is market relevance. Apple is already not a tier 1 workstation vendor. Pushing their entry prices higher is only going to push them deeper into the "Others" category.

I agree then can "buy" their way into Tier-1 with iMac fratricide pricing. But that is no reason to go the opposite direction. The current price-product pairing has problems too. If it was working insanely great they wouldn't have dropped the form factor.

 

[wallysb01]

Even at a $5K entry point there's probably enough demand from deep-pocket production houses that could consume all of Apple's production capacity for the first year.

Is anyone that wedded to the operating system that they will pay 2-3x as much for the same performance? 6-core modest duel GPU systems aren't worth anything close to $5K.

 

[VirtualRain]

If not talking about price why trying to drive the price up with more expensive components?



And exactly what is wrong with 4 cores for the Mac Pro. This means Mac Pro's starting with 4 and going up is just as Fast standard and even Faster. Those who want the "way Faster" can buy the middle and up Mac Pro. There is absolutely zero conflict here at all. As I said you keep conflating the entry Mac Pro marketing issues with the whole Mac Pro issues they are quite separate.

The 4 core being "Fast" and the iMacs being "Fast" doesn't mean they won't be hugely separated on Apple's hyperbole marketing pages. The entry 4 core model would have 6 TB ports the iMac only two. How much want to beat that the Mac Pro's hyperbole marketing pages aren't going to make a big deal about the highly unusual number of TB ports present? Or the two "pro" GPUs as opposed to the one "mobile, maybe entry desktop class" one stuck with in the iMac.

Apple's hyperbole marketing page is going to pitch the whole Mac Pro line up. It isn't going to be limited to just 4 x86 cores.





Only on the myopic CPU dimension. RAM? more. TB ports and I/O bandwidth? More. Monitor choices? hugely more. If those aspects mean zero why buying a Mac Pro in the first place. The buyers have to be different for the differentiation to have any impact. You seem to be trying to pitch the 4 core model has to 'take away' some hard core iMac targeted folks, so just "run away" by putting a $1000 gap between.

It is far more effective to just highlight the differences that are present more effectively than to artificially inflate the product's price.





The > $2K computer market is already exclusive. The average selling price of a desktop box is sub $1K.

A $1,000 more just to go to 2 more cores ..... Even Intel spinning that kind of story. Never mind there are going to be gobs of decent $1,500 6 core boxes out on the market. That is selling kool-aid not exclusivity.








No Mac outperforms all other Macs on all aspects. If mobility is a factor then the MBP out performs the Mac Pro.

The entry Mac Pro is right next to the top end BTO iMac. They are going to be similar because they are close, but neither one is the whole product.

Anyone who needs balanced, sustained high end computation the Mac Pro is different from the iMac.



No. It just needs to be different; which it is.




So the Mac Pro has several other differences but if don't mark this one singular difference ( which it actually has anyway without destroying the entry level Mac Pro's pricing ) then it is a fail.

It is a marketing failure if don't highlight the differences the product actually has. Injecting artificial ones is adding gimmicks, not better marketing.






You don't have to agree to what actually happened. MBA 11" wiped out MacBook at the same price point. rMBP 15" wiped out MBP 17" at about the same price points.

Trying to extrpoloate the MBA 13" to Apple's standard practice is fundamentally flawed. There are two examples above and only one of yours. Which one is more likely Apple's general approach? Which one more closely matches the current situation ( killed off form factor.)?



You must drink a gallon of Cupertino Kool-aid every day. First, those " flush with so much money don't really care" folks aren't the bulk of the Mac Pro market (either now or the new subset the Mac Pro 2013 is targeting). Second, if Apple was primarily interested in keeping the > $4.5K market they would have kept the dual CPU infrastructure foundation and dumped the single CPU option. They did exactly the opposite. So I don't think even they are drinking the kool-aid you are.

Apple is not immune from the general forces pushing computer prices lower. It is a juggling act to insert more value to keep the prices steady but arbitrarily doubling the prices... that is walking on water that even Apple isn't going to do.

Is Apple going hit $2,499 exactly? Maybe not. (hinges on their FirePro licensing and part sourcing deal ). $2,599 could be the number. But purposely pushing away from the price point when the parts don't demand it, that's loopy. Product prices are very significant.




I don't because there is a mix of component price reductions and increases. There may be a marginal net increase, but a large jump isn't really justified in the context of those reductions. For a fair number of users there is going to be some cost shifting from Mac Pro to another component to complete the deployed system.

For example, if buy into the "tail wags dog" folks, a higher Mac Pro price will only decrease Thunderbolt Display sales. Higher core system price is going to force a reductions elsewhere for those on a budget.






Domination isn't the issue. It is market relevance. Apple is already not a tier 1 workstation vendor. Pushing their entry prices higher is only going to push them deeper into the "Others" category.

I agree then can "buy" their way into Tier-1 with iMac fratricide pricing. But that is no reason to go the opposite direction. The current price-product pairing has problems too. If it was working insanely great they wouldn't have dropped the form factor.

I see where you got your alias now... You're the master at deconstructing people's posts into 60 or more pieces.

I guess we just disagree on how Apple might approach the positioning and pricing of this new Mac Pro.

Is anyone that wedded to the operating system that they will pay 2-3x as much for the same performance? 6-core modest duel GPU systems aren't worth anything close to $5K.

Consider... The current 2012 Hex Core with 512GB SSD, and 16GB RAM, with dual 7950 Mac Edition GPUs would set you back almost exactly $5K.

If Apple, chooses to equip the base 2013 Mac Pro in the same fashion, there's no reason to believe the price would be much less. As I've said numerous times, I'm guessing a starting price for this configuration (with maybe a smaller SSD and less RAM) of $3K but I may be way low.

 

[clamnectar]

Consider... The current 2012 Hex Core with 512GB SSD, and 16GB RAM, with dual 7950 Mac Edition GPUs would set you back almost exactly $5K.

If Apple, chooses to equip the base 2013 Mac Pro in the same fashion, there's no reason to believe the price would be much less. As I've said numerous times, I'm guessing a starting price for this configuration (with maybe a smaller SSD and less RAM) of $3K but I may be way low.

I don't know... $5k base model would kind of be a disaster. Apple is clearly considering all things in order to turn this redesign into a newly viable product, so I don't think you can extrapolate price directly from the old models.

 

[VirtualRain]

I don't know... $5k base model would kind of be a disaster. Apple is clearly considering all things in order to turn this redesign into a newly viable product, so I don't think you can extrapolate price directly from the old models.

Without combing back through this thread, has anyone put together a BOM to price this out?

Cost...
- $300 CPU (Quad)
- $100 Main Board/Connection panel
- $250 GPU (7950 chip, board and VRAM)
- $250 2ndGPU (7950 chip, board and VRAM)
- $125 SSD (256GB)
- $150 3x TB Controllers @ $50/each
- $100 RAM (8GB)
- $100 PSU (500W?)
- $100 case

That's roughly $1500 in parts. Even if I'm off on several things, there's little chance of the cost being below $1200. If Apple wants a 50% margin (likely) then the price will likely be $2.5-$3K for what is a modest configuration (Quad, 8GB, 256GB). If they opt for the entry level to be a Hex, 16GB, and 512GB SSD, then it obviously would be higher ($3K+).

 

[chrono1081]

I hope whatever the price point is that I'll be able to afford it, and a Mari license. I'll be in texture painting heaven.

 

[Quash]

Well CPU prices leaked:

All of the mentioned above CPUs are on Intel's roadmap, and they will be released this quarter. Known specifications of Xeon E5-2600 v2 series processors are provided below. Be aware that some of that data came from a single unreliable source, and was not confirmed yet:

Model Cores , Frequency , L3 cache , TDP : Pre-order price

Xeon E5-2603 v2 4 , 1.8 GHz , 10 MB , 80 Watt : $231.62
Xeon E5-2609 v2 4 , 2.5 GHz , 10 MB , 80 Watt : $337.03
Xeon E5-2620 v2 6 , 2.1 GHz , 15 MB , 80 Watt : $464.48
Xeon E5-2630 v2 6 , 2.6 GHz , 15 MB , 80 Watt :
Xeon E5-2630L v2 6 , 2.4 GHz , 15 MB , ? , $701.01
Xeon E5-2637 v2 4 3.5 GHz , 15 MB , ? , $1140.99
Xeon E5-2640 v2 8 , 2 GHz , 20 MB , 95 Watt : $1013.54
Xeon E5-2643 v2 6 , 3.5 GHz , 25 MB , 130 Watt :
Xeon E5-2650 v2 8 , 2.6 GHz , 20 MB , 95 Watt : $1335.85
Xeon E5-2650L v2 10 , 1.7 GHz , 25 MB , 70 Watt : $1395.91
Xeon E5-2660 v2 10 , 2.2 GHz , 25 MB , 95 Watt : $1590.78
Xeon E5-2667 v2 8 , 3.3 GHz , 25 MB , 130 Watt : $2320.64
Xeon E5-2670 v2 10 , 2.5 GHz , 25 MB , 115 Watt :
Xeon E5-2680 v2 10 , 2.8 GHz , 25 MB , 115 Watt : $1943.93
Xeon E5-2687W v2 8 , 3.4 GHz , 20 MB , 150 Watt : $2414.35
Xeon E5-2690 v2 10 , 3 GHz , 25 MB , 130 Watt : $2355.52
Xeon E5-2695 v2 12 , 2.4 GHz , 30 MB , 115 Watt : $2675.39
Xeon E5-2697 v2 12 , 2.7 GHz , 30 MB , 130 Watt : $2949.69

http://www.cpu-world.com//news_2013/2013080801_More_details_on_Intel_Xeon_E5-2600_v2_lineup.html

 

[G4DP]

Going on those prices, the cheapest chip is probably going to cost apple about $500. Unless they are really cheap and offer a totally crippled and pointless low end version.

Anyone hoping for a $1500 start price are going to be sadly disappointed.

 

[clamnectar]

Well CPU prices leaked:

All of the mentioned above CPUs are on Intel's roadmap, and they will be released this quarter. Known specifications of Xeon E5-2600 v2 series processors are provided below. Be aware that some of that data came from a single unreliable source, and was not confirmed yet:

Model Cores , Frequency , L3 cache , TDP : Pre-order price

Xeon E5-2603 v2 4 , 1.8 GHz , 10 MB , 80 Watt : $231.62
Xeon E5-2609 v2 4 , 2.5 GHz , 10 MB , 80 Watt : $337.03
Xeon E5-2620 v2 6 , 2.1 GHz , 15 MB , 80 Watt : $464.48
Xeon E5-2630 v2 6 , 2.6 GHz , 15 MB , 80 Watt :
Xeon E5-2630L v2 6 , 2.4 GHz , 15 MB , ? , $701.01
Xeon E5-2637 v2 4 3.5 GHz , 15 MB , ? , $1140.99
Xeon E5-2640 v2 8 , 2 GHz , 20 MB , 95 Watt : $1013.54
Xeon E5-2643 v2 6 , 3.5 GHz , 25 MB , 130 Watt :
Xeon E5-2650 v2 8 , 2.6 GHz , 20 MB , 95 Watt : $1335.85
Xeon E5-2650L v2 10 , 1.7 GHz , 25 MB , 70 Watt : $1395.91
Xeon E5-2660 v2 10 , 2.2 GHz , 25 MB , 95 Watt : $1590.78
Xeon E5-2667 v2 8 , 3.3 GHz , 25 MB , 130 Watt : $2320.64
Xeon E5-2670 v2 10 , 2.5 GHz , 25 MB , 115 Watt :
Xeon E5-2680 v2 10 , 2.8 GHz , 25 MB , 115 Watt : $1943.93
Xeon E5-2687W v2 8 , 3.4 GHz , 20 MB , 150 Watt : $2414.35
Xeon E5-2690 v2 10 , 3 GHz , 25 MB , 130 Watt : $2355.52
Xeon E5-2695 v2 12 , 2.4 GHz , 30 MB , 115 Watt : $2675.39
Xeon E5-2697 v2 12 , 2.7 GHz , 30 MB , 130 Watt : $2949.69

http://www.cpu-world.com//news_2013/2013080801_More_details_on_Intel_Xeon_E5-2600_v2_lineup.html

Alright then, I'm calling it.

Low end Base
Xeon E5-2630L v2 6 , 2.4 GHz , 15 MB , ? , $701.01

Low end +
Xeon E5-2630 v2 6 , 2.6 GHz , 15 MB , 80 Watt : ?

High end Base
Xeon E5-2650 v2 8 , 2.6 GHz , 20 MB , 95 Watt : $1335.85

High end +
Xeon E5-2680 v2 10 , 2.8 GHz , 25 MB , 115 Watt : $1943.93

Top end
Xeon E5-2697 v2 12 , 2.7 GHz , 30 MB , 130 Watt : $2949.69

 

[-hh]

why does everybody here assume everyone else is an idiot? i was just pointing out a cost saving example from having a smaller size..

Fair enough, but we still need to test for significance ... and this also includes what Apple can get for bulk wholesale rates.

re: materials.. the new mac enclosure can be made out of the current side panel alone. i don't know how thin the new enclosure is but you might be able to get 2 out of the old side panel.

And Aluminum is $2000 per ton. So even if they cut the system weight by 75%, we're probably only looking at $10 of it due to the case.

regardless, there are definitely savings coming from the smaller size which is going to translate into more computing power per $

For bang for the buck, one can go much further by minimizing one's assessed value of OS X and buying a Dell/HP instead.

-hh

 

[flat five]

And Aluminum is $2000 per ton. So even if they cut the system weight by 75%, we're probably only looking at $10 of it due to the case.

yeah, that's probably about right. i honestly have no real idea how much these different parts cost.. most of the things i've been saying in these cost threads are guesses.

For bang for the buck, one can go much further by minimizing one's assessed value of OS X and buying a Dell/HP instead.

-hh

in my case, it's no so much that i have an overly inflated value on osx.. it's more to do with using a windows machine becomes a lot more expensive due to the fact that i don't know windows.
or is that saying the same thing?